JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9A06C59E6708jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11: > What's really impossible is to think that there is one schema that can > do it all. The data is what it is, no more, no less. Just as I used a What I meant to say here was that what was impossible is one fixed attribute structure could do it all (meet all needs/wants/criteria), not one schema. By it's very nature an XML schema can expand & vary, but it's all tied together as a record set by some common attribute(s). In fact, the more I think about it and read some of the conversations here, the more I think that what should really happen is that relationships between individuals should NEVER be part of the genealogy data set! Associations to other individuals should be done by software and/or user selection of criteria, based on an individual's association with another element (citation; document, "event", personal account, etc- each with a set of variable weightings), and multiples/matrices of these elements. And, that these criteria sets should be XML conformant and loadable/saveable. That seems to me to be the only way to split data from decisions, allow for varying decision types & thresholds, and still allow for software to automate & aid the process. (Feel free to ignore me, I'm new here.) :-)

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote in > news:Xns9A06C59E6708jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11: > > >>What's really impossible is to think that there is one schema that can >>do it all. The data is what it is, no more, no less. Just as I used a > > > What I meant to say here was that what was impossible is one fixed > attribute structure could do it all (meet all needs/wants/criteria), not > one schema. > > By it's very nature an XML schema can expand & vary, but it's all tied > together as a record set by some common attribute(s). > > In fact, the more I think about it and read some of the conversations here, > the more I think that what should really happen is that relationships > between individuals should NEVER be part of the genealogy data set! > Associations to other individuals should be done by software and/or user > selection of criteria, based on an individual's association with another > element (citation; document, "event", personal account, etc- each with a > set of variable weightings), and multiples/matrices of these elements. And, > that these criteria sets should be XML conformant and loadable/saveable. > > That seems to me to be the only way to split data from decisions, allow for > varying decision types & thresholds, and still allow for software to > automate & aid the process. > > (Feel free to ignore me, I'm new here.) :-) We can tell. ;) However -- if I'm recording bits of evidence about everyone in a community, I'm writing a community history, NOT a family genealogy. If I'm writing in the abstract about one family's interactions with another, it's sociology not genealogy. If I'm writing about how the Mingo interacted with the Swedes, it's anthropology, not genealogy. Cheryl